[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 58 KB, 659x255, 1619484608963.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
18294174 No.18294174 [Reply] [Original]

How did this guy create such a powerful philosophical worldview that all the Abrahamic religions had to steal his shit to even compete?

>> No.18294303

>>18294174
Ok but how do you know yourself

>> No.18294329

>>18294174
I love Plotinus, I love Plato and I consider them on par with saints and prophets. However, they don’t present peak metaphysics, their theosophy is far behind Christianity’s, Boehmian theosophy, Lurianic Kabbalah, and they have no consideration for the anthropological pertinence of metaphysics in history, no heilsgeschichte. Love is above Good.

>> No.18294332

>>18294174
https://www.logicalfallacies.org/circular-reasoning.html
https://www.logicalfallacies.org/appeal-to-nature.html
https://www.logicalfallacies.org/appeal-to-emotion.html

>> No.18294342

>>18294303
Contemplation.
>>18294329
This only appears to you so because you are of different quality when compared with Plato and Plotinus.
>>18294332
>wrong
>form =/= "nature" as defined by dumb gay anglo/frog intellectuals
>facts don't care about your feelings

>> No.18294351

>>18294342
>Contemplation
Of what and through which practical means?

>> No.18294354

>>18294342
Yes that is my point, superior quality.

>> No.18294361

>>18294174
Because he was blessed by the gods and the Christians obviously were not so they had to steal in order to cope.

>> No.18294363

>>18294329
>anthropological pertinence of metaphysics in history, no heilsgeschichte. Love is above Good.
Brainlet Hegelian take.

>> No.18294372

>>18294354
Placing love above good means you're still below the level of Symposium. You have a long way to go to reach Plotinus.

>> No.18294411

>>18294363
Great retort, cope more nihilist.

>>18294372
Good is necessity, Love is Pure Will. Former leads to spinozist necessitarianism and thus nihilism.

>> No.18294416

>>18294351
It's explained in the Enneads. Start by contemplating the virtue you find in admirable men around you.
>>18294354
Indeed they were.

>> No.18294435

>>18294416
>you are of a different quality
>superior quality
>they were
The the quality and my emphasis on its kind were predicated of the subject You, me myself in the case.

>> No.18294493

>>18294435
Yeah well my point is that you are wrong lol. You are not on the level of Plotinus or Plato. In fact, judging from what you say here >>18294411 in reference to the Good and Spinoza it seems that you have a long road ahead of you.

>> No.18294547

>>18294493
Say something substantial please.

>> No.18294566

>>18294547
Okay. Any requests?

>> No.18294583
File: 249 KB, 401x532, 658678.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
18294583

>>18294566
Not him but do every hypostasis in Neoplatonism have personhood in the same way Christian think of when they talk about hypostasis or did the Neoplatonists use the term in another way?

>> No.18294594

>>18294566
Read my posts in the thread. All what i said make room for many different and deep discussions.

>> No.18294668

Is there any point in reading the later writers or is Plotinus enough? Seems like they unnecessarily complicated his threefold system to accommodate their beliefs in paganism and magic.

>> No.18294704

>>18294583
As far as I am aware, there is a difference. The Christian God is rather anthropomorphic. Neoplatonism presents a different worldview. IMHO you would certainly not find any of the anthropomorphic personhood in Neoplatonic hypostases.
>>18294594
I think you are flattering yourself a bit too much. If you have any point you wish to raise then do so and I will address it or ask for more detail. As it stands I have no idea what you want me to do.
>>18294668
Plotinus was also like that, though. The main difference is that Plotinus focuses on contemplation and the others explore other means of spiritual growth such as theurgy. If contemplation is sufficient for you, you do not need to engage with the other Neoplatonists.

>> No.18294742

>>18294704
>if you have any point you wish to raise then do so
I literally raised fundamental points in my posts. Will you just ignore them? How does a Good thing is Good by necessity? How does the One define the Dyad out of goodness if the nature of the One is Good, to be Good? Can you see the necessitarianism here? A thing good or truly good does so not out of necessity, be it of its nature or whatever else, but out of free will literally. Platonic intellectualism is great and perfect to attain the first principles, but let the First Principle to those who know It.

>> No.18294867

>>18294742
>How does a Good thing is Good by necessity?
I do not see any more reason in asking this question than asking "why is a rock a rock" or "why is a bird a bird".
>How does the One define the Dyad out of goodness if the nature of the One is Good, to be Good?
The One is good because it is The One, not The One because it is good. The One is called the Good because it is supreme.
>Can you see the necessitarianism here?
Where do you see necessitarianism? Tell me how you understand that term, where you see it and why it troubles you.
>A thing good or truly good does so not out of necessity, be it of its nature or whatever else, but out of free will literally.
Why? Moreover, where is the contradiction? Is there a problem with willing one's nature? It is possible to will the opposite of one's nature, too. It is not a "necessity" to will your own nature, it is just highly advisable to do so.

>> No.18294888
File: 135 KB, 1280x720, ics-final-logo.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
18294888

>>18294174
>Abrahamic religions had to steal his shit to even compete?
they've done this of basically every philosophy anon

>> No.18294902

>>18294342
>This only appears to you so because you are of different quality when compared with Plato and Plotinus.
I don't know what you mean by this

>> No.18294905

>>18294411
>Good is necessity
No.
Good is pure actuality, which implies unconditioned freedom. Potentiality (deprivation), and thus an external actualizer, would imply necessity.
>Love is Pure Will.
No, again.
Love is pure deprivation. One cannot love unless one has not. There's certainly nothing wrong with love in itself, but it is by no means a higher principle. Again, read the Symposium
You've not dipped your toes in any real philosophy except Hegel or Feuerbach (if he can even be called a philosopher) by the looks of it.

>> No.18294934

>>18294902
People in the past existed in a different spiritual climate. A select few among them even preserved certain conditions and qualities that belonged to superior men who lived even further back in time. Many of these people considered the body to be a simple vessel to something greater. Today, on the other hand, the body is universally considered to be the main reference point of existence. Even when we speak of spirit or soul or intellect or what have you, you are a "human" first - meaning, specifically, a human body with a human mind. Matter.

>> No.18295010

>>18294867
The first question was merely rhetorical.
Plato calls the One the Good and the Dyad Evil. The former attribution is explicit in the dialogues. See how in Timaeus the One/Good is a paradigm making the Nous follow it in creation, leading to the determinative character of the One/Good.
It is not because it is supreme that it is the Good, the Dyad is also supreme, but the former is Limited, Definite, that’s why.

>necessitarianism
I think this is the necessity of the Intellect itself, but take our case for example. What is determinant: will or intellect? How can we direct our intellect to something? Of course what the Intellect apprehends must be intelligible and because of it must be what it is, there is no volition involved here. But this is not the only process running.
In this way the One mixes itself with the Dyad not because of will, not because it chooses what is good over what is not, but because it is determined to define and determine and be good.

>is there is a problem with willing one’s nature?
You are right here but this is the problem in the protology as ultimate, there is no will in the One, it defines out of its necessary activity.

>> No.18295016
File: 287 KB, 1280x1063, IMG_2800.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
18295016

>>18295010
So, instead of an original point, there is instead a possibility. But if it is, you can have a kind of perfection, this is all what He says. And to the extent that there is no will in the One, and there is the possibility that there is and this possibility must exist, this must be a goodness, it must exist. And the claim that a certain point in time, there is a will, is a claim that another point in time is possible. But this must be the least good. It must be in the light of what is. And yet!

>> No.18295043
File: 64 KB, 658x901, DuncePepe.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
18295043

>>18294174
>Ruins the church with pseudo-intellectual faggotry
>How did this guy create such a powerful philosophical worldview that all the Abrahamic religions had to steal his shit to even compete?
It's ok with us that you aren't very intelligent.

>> No.18295060

>>18294905
I would like to advise you beforehand that I am solely referring to platonic protology here as your reply is missing crucial points of its doctrines.

>good is pure actuality which implies unconditioned freedom
The One/Good is the opposite of unconditioned (Dyad), it is the very definition of definition, so to speak. And it must defined because it is its nature, just as you said the actualizer is to the potential, dialectical necessity - privation implied in the relation for its own completion. The point is that this is out of necessity and not will as we can see with Love.

>Love is pure deprivation...
Since we are talking about the First Principle and making analogical transpositions in the same way of the platonicnprotology Love must be understood in the same way and same position as that of the (platonic) Good. Love in this case is inseparable from Will. The deprivation is willed, there is no necessity involved in the process of love.
Protology implicates in the principles of what will follow, creation/manifestation in the case. The process of Love is not dialectical, but trialectical and the privation again is willed. Love implies mutuality and correspondence. Thus the privation of one is its completion in the other and their resolution is in the same thing: the very relation that is Love.

>> No.18295061

>>18294742
>>18294905 here
Your problem seems to be the moralization (love/hate) of the idea of the Good, which is why you seem to be so obsessed with this vulgar idea of love. The thing is Good merely because it is pure Actuality and thus pure Truth/reality. There is no necessity in its being Good except insofar as it is necessarily free and unconditioned, which, if you followed reasoning from earlier philosophers, is equivalent to its being purely real or Actual. This freedom, as pure Actuality, cannot be considered necessary unless you consider freedom itself a binding. This is necessarily, also, freedom from love, and freedom for self-negation. Love is subordinated to this principle of Actuality, because if something was bound to Love, as your supposed highest principle is, then it would not be free, and it would no longer be justifiably known as the highest principle, because it is contingent upon love. This is ignoring what I've already said about love itself being a deficiency.

>> No.18295076

>>18294934
The Greeks who dichotomized intellect/spirit/soul and flesh and prioritized the former were outliers in their respective cultures. The greeks emphasized the corporeal far more than we do today.

>> No.18295086
File: 1.24 MB, 1280x941, IMG_1869.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
18295086

>>18295076
Those who strove to connect the intellect and the spirit and conceive of the body as a superlative instrument could be classified as archaic, idealistic or even a bit romantic.

The Greek worldview, as rich and diverse as it is, is still controversial to those more influenced by Rousseau, Nietzsche and Freud.

>> No.18295152

>>18295010
>It is not because it is supreme that it is the Good, the Dyad is also supreme, but the former is Limited, Definite, that’s why.
I disagree with your use of the word "supreme" here, so obviously we would not hold the same opinions. In my view, the One is the only thing that could be called supreme.
>necessitarianism
I do not feel comfortable addressing this as I am not sure what you mean in this paragraph.
>You are right here but this is the problem in the protology as ultimate, there is no will in the One, it defines out of its necessary activity.
I disagree.
>>18295076
There is no contradiction between a deep and profound aesthetic appreciation of the body on the one hand and an understanding of oneself as spirit on the other hand. In fact, Greek aesthetic tastes corroborate this as they aimed for idealism in art.

>> No.18295294

>>18295061
You really can't see how it is the very opposite here, lol? Are you familiar with what we are dealing here: Platonic Protology!?
Morality concerns specific determined actions. This is what characterizes the One as Good in the protology, its activity upon the Dyad - necessarily determined.

>vulgar idea of love
The platonic idea of love is the vulgar one, friend.

>The thing is good merely because it is pure Actuality
Wrong. I have to tell you we are dealing with platonic protology (this is the fourth time I need to remember). The One is not Good if it does not do what it is: Limited. It must Limit the Unlimited to actualize itself, to express its own goodness. The One-Dyad relation is dialectical and one implies the other, they cannot be separated.

>There is no necessity in its being Good except insofar as it is necessarily free and unconditioned,
There is no necessity in its being Good except insofar as it is necessarily...Good? Unless you mean freedom and unconditioned not to be good or something external/potential to what is actual.

>This freedom, as pure Actuality, cannot be considered necessary unless you consider freedom itself a binding
nonsense

>Love is subordinated to this principle of Actuality, because if something was bound to Love, as your supposed highest principle is, then it would not be free
Love implies freedom of will, you cannot be forced to love anything, otherwise this is simply not-love.

>This is ignoring what I've already said about love itself being a deficiency.
>>18295060

>> No.18295315

>>18295152
>I disagree with your use of the word "supreme" here... the One is the only thing that could be called supreme.
Then you don't disagree with the word but the application of the word? Fair enough. But in Plato's protology the One and the Dyad are supreme, both, together, there can't be separation. If there is no Dyad, there is nothing for the One to determine. The Dyad is the image of the One. Think of the dialogue Parmenides when the One-that-is is Two.

>> No.18295322

>>18294174
How did Abrahamic religions steal his stuff if they were before him?

>> No.18295333

>>18295322
They were myths without theology. All their justifications are reverse engineered using Greek thought.

>> No.18295337

>>18295315
>But in Plato's protology the One and the Dyad are supreme, both, together, there can't be separation.
I could agree with this. However, the supremacy in this case would necessarily stem from the one.
>If there is no Dyad, there is nothing for the One to determine.
On the material plane, no, but the One is superior to the material plane. Human beings have two natures, so for us there exist special considerations here. Judging from the rest of your posts here, however, it seems you have some dialectical interpretation of the One, which I disagree with to the extreme degree. So long as you hold that interpretation, we cannot and will not see eye to eye on most things related to the One.

>> No.18295339

>>18295333
But the bible was already written before Plotinus

>> No.18295345

>>18295333
>myth without theology
you don't know what myth and theology are, clearly, lol.
1) christianity is counter-mythical.
2) greek thought was necessarily imposed with the hellenistic expansion throughout all the mediterranean, that is why you have septuagint, philo, gnostic syncretism. do you wonder why church fathers literally were greeks, having greek as native/second language because of lingua franca?

start reading books, urgently.

>> No.18295357

>>18295339
He explained that.

>> No.18295364

>>18295357
The bible has no theology?

>> No.18295369

>>18295345
>you don't know what myth and theolog
Yeah I do. And they are not your random special ed definitions contrived for arguing with people.

Christianity is a myth like the others. If you believe in it fine, you are not going to consider it a myth that comes with the territory. It is a myth to everyone else lol.

You second point is just you agreeing with me aggressively.

>> No.18295378

>>18295364
Of course not. It is a mythological narrative.
The theology comes later when people start asking questions and you are forced to come up with explanations for things.

>> No.18295384

>>18295369
>your definition of myth is random!!!!!!!
>my definition is not
>you dont know what is christianity
>i know
you are completely lost

>> No.18295386

>>18295378
what is christology? did christians have to steal it from the platonists too?

>> No.18295406

>>18295384
Now you are just sperging out. Pretty embarrassing desu.

>> No.18295425

>>18295406
i mean, pretty based that you think that myths are necessarily separated from metaphysical principles, or that they are later rationalizations of prior events. based as fuck indeed. but you don't know what christianity is.

>> No.18295432

>>18295386
Eh, I mean more like how rhetoric and logic is employed to create actual arguments, justifications, and clarification and what not within theology, not specific branches of it. I mean people do make arguments that Jesus is Dionysus, or any number of other death-rebirth demi-gods, imported into Jewish myth, but I don't really think that can be proved, I am fine with Christ being his own thing.

>> No.18295463
File: 96 KB, 907x1360, 565845.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
18295463

>>18295432
I need say nothing more.

>> No.18295465

>>18295425
>myths are necessarily separated from metaphysical principles

The expression of these principles within Christianity in a discursive, beyond the narrative presented in the gospels and other texts, of the manner that forms the body of Christian theology is entirely predicated on Greek thought to articulate itself.
This is not controversial. There is no Aquinas without Aristotle for instance.

>> No.18295475

>>18295463
Probably because you are unable to. Stick to posting book covers, it suits you.

>> No.18295479

>>18295465
Form is different from content, friend. There is no Aquinas without Christianity (Christ, Bible, Apostles) and the same for literally al christians. Simple.
Read Philo, see how he employs platonic and stoic thought merely as hermeneutical tools. That is explicitly what literally all christian thinkers did and the reason is those I pointed here >>18295345, historical and political contingencies.

>> No.18295483

>>18295475
Imagine being this averse to reading.

>> No.18295523

>>18295479
>There is no Aquinas without Christianity
Did I really have to point that out?
The rest of the post is just you agreeing with me, yet again, that Christian thinkers employed Greek thought to their own ends.
You just seem angry and in need of a fight desu.

>>18295483
Imagine being so utterly disingenuous as to assume that 1. the person you are talking to doesn't read just because you are pissed off at them, and 2. That posting the cover of a book actually means anything in an exchange.

>> No.18295572

>>18295523
>did i really have to point that out
well insofar as you say that there is no aquinas, a christian theologian, without a greek thinker... i guess so? i did not deny at any moment the influence of the greek scientific paradigm, i was never disingenuous like you were to affirm such absurdities.

>that Christian thinkers employed Greek thought to their own ends
well yes, this is kinda the point, greek thought not essential, but a means. and this was not the case only with christianity, but everything in the mediterranean from 300 BC until modern times.

>1. the person you are talking to doesn't read just because you are pissed off at them
im not pissed off lmao, i find it funny and even comforting (how someone saying so dumb shit must be so ignorant and this ignorant person hates christianity)

>2. That posting the cover of a book actually means anything in an exchange.
there is no exchange about christianity, myth and religion with someone who has no idea what these are. the best i can do is to help him to actually know these, thus my book recommendation.

>> No.18295642

Didnt Plato refute non duality

>> No.18295657

>>18295642
what are you talking about

>> No.18295690

>>18295657
Didnt he refute the idea that at bottom there is only one thing

>> No.18296434

>>18295690
Yes. Plato knows exactly this, that is why his protology is not a single one principle, or better saying, it is a single one principle comprised of two - One and Dyad. Each conditioned (in different manners) to the other.

>> No.18296519

>>18296434
But for Plotinus there is ultimately only the One yeah?

>> No.18296669

>>18296519
I think it is really difficult to interpret Plotinus. He sometimes seems to identify One and Self, at other times he makes the One inscrutable.

>> No.18296741

How do Neoplatonists refute Christianity?

>> No.18297231

>>18294351
Meditation.